How do you use settings/worlds?

[Imaro]

Just curious how the majority of posters here approach worlds/settings of both their own design and/or published.

 

[DM_Jeff]

I voted # 2. The reason I use the Forgotten Realms and Eberron settings is the majority of the basics are known and expected by the players, so I keep the basic stuff as is for commonality. But if I have to throw 'em a curveball now and again to keep things interesting, sure.

-DM Jeff

 

[Imaro]

Just something else I'm curious about...can your players, through their choices and actiions, affect real change in your world of choice. Why? or why? not?

 

[Firedancer]

I use written material to create a similar understanding. The players and I have roughly the same knowledge of history and cultures so there isn't so much misunderstanding.

When I do my own world I try to either provide a document of relevent material or let it grow as we play.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I use written material to create a similar understanding. The players and I have roughly the same knowledge of history and cultures so there isn't so much misunderstanding.

When I do my own world I try to either provide a document of relevent material or let it grow as we play.

I voted option number 2. I usually change up some things in a published world.

As for the players changing things, what do you mean by "real change?" They probably cannot change the climate of a region, or the location of a nation. At lower levels, they probably cannot do much that would be considered "real change," but at higher levels, they certainly could. They might alter the political situation between two nations.

In my old Scarred Lands campaign, the way things were going there was a real chance of a confrontation between the party and Queen Geleeda. Who knows how that would have ended, but if the party ended up killing her, it would certainly change the world.

 

[el-remmen]

Just something else I'm curious about...can your players, through their choices and actiions, affect real change in your world of choice. Why? or why? not?

Of course.

What's the point if they can't?

It is for this reason that I don't like to run/play in games in an established licensed setting like Star Wars - not because you can't change it if you want to - but because I usually would rather not - so better to use a homebrew (or even a setting specifically created to play in, like the Realms) so it can be changed and effected with impunity.

Of course, because of the way I run games, decisions by the PCs often have several simultaneous effects both short and long term, both good and bad. I see the world as a web of connections and interdependent forces.

Oh, and I voted #2.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am somewhere between 2 and 3, so I picked 2 so as to not skew your data.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just something else I'm curious about...can your players, through their choices and actiions, affect real change in your world of choice. Why? or why? not?

Yes. I even included mechanics to allow them to change things outside of the actions of their characters.

 

[Imaro]

I voted option number 2. I usually change up some things in a published world.

As for the players changing things, what do you mean by "real change?" They probably cannot change the climate of a region, or the location of a nation. At lower levels, they probably cannot do much that would be considered "real change," but at higher levels, they certainly could. They might alter the political situation between two nations.

In my old Scarred Lands campaign, the way things were going there was a real chance of a confrontation between the party and Queen Geleeda. Who knows how that would have ended, but if the party ended up killing her, it would certainly change the world.

Basically I meant it the way you expressed it here...though couldn't they change the climate with the right magic?

 

[tylerthehobo]

Little anecdote here. I use campaign settings as a base. Even in cases like FR where I've picked up a lot of the ancillary material, there's no reason to try to force the players to have to play within constraints of dozens of books that they nor I have read. So, when Eberron came out, my players in various groups loved it - a new slate to start with, and one that had lots of "open space" to flesh out. Anyway, as part of an adventure, one party went up against the hag queens, and killed her. I remembered posting to the WotC boards, in between sessions, when it became apparent that they might go up against her something to the effect of "So, if the PCs in my party killed one of the hag queens, what would the expected impact of that event be?" I got flamed by post upon post of "you can't do that! it's not allowed! you can't allow your party to kill a major NPC! it will upset the balance of power!" as if Breland and the Hags were in some real-life cold war.

I felt a little like James Caan in Misery that day...